[Zimahl]

I get what both are saying but from a pragamtic, unemotional side I think Atwood is right. Atwood's simple premise is that if you are going to be an activist, you better realize that those in power are going to throw everything at you so you better be ready to accept the consequences. In even simpler terms, 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'.

I know this is a bad example, but I watch 'Whale Wars'. Those folks know exactly what they are doing and walking a very, very fine line where they could be guilty of many offenses in multiple countries. But they don't care and a few have served time for what they have done. They don't seem to whine about it because they feel it's worth it.

What Atwood says appears cold and insensitive. But I think he's getting a little tired (like a lot of us) of the constant 'Swartz did nothing wrong'/'prosecution for no reason'/'visionary bullied into suicide' meme (nothing else to call it). He absolutely broke the law in a couple ways. Was the prosecution overzealous? Maybe. We don't know what the outcome would've been so we can't say whether it would've been fair.

[supervacuo]

"The law" isn't some monolith, though -- it's defined by every institution (every person?) enforcing it, and every decision made in carrying out "justice".

It's a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to port-scan Google. Are you really saying that you'd be getting tired of people talking about it if someone who'd done just that was facing years in jail (a perfectly _legal_ consequence).

[Zimahl]

"The law" isn't some monolith, though -- it's defined by every institution (every person?) enforcing it, and every decision made in carrying out "justice".

There are laws which may or may not be levied against us in certain situations. You are implying that Swartz shouldn't have been prosecuted just because you feel what he did wasn't wrong. Your feelings are completely irrelevant. Someone felt wronged and brought it to the attention of those who could prosecute the crime.

Are you really saying that you'd be getting tired of people talking about it if someone who'd done just that was facing years in jail (a perfectly _legal_ consequence).

If it were receiving as much biased anti-law exposure as this case is receiving then absolutely. Swartz was facing years in jail, yes, but he might have (most likely) received a much more minor sentence.

What ardent Swartz supports need to realize is:

1) He made the decision to break the law - which it appears he clearly knew what he was doing was illegal. 2) He knew there were consequences - although probably not of the severity he thought. 2) No one forced him to do it. 3) There were other options for changing the system. 4) It was his choice to kill himself.

If you feel that the maximum punishment didn't fit the crime you should do something about that to possibly save others in the future. But please don't expect us all to have outrage over Swartz being punished. It's a shame he killed himself but that's tertiary to the issue of the entire case. Just because he killed himself doesn't mean he's less guilty or more innocent.

[supervacuo]

I think your first sentence perfectly illustrates my point:

> There are laws which may or may not be levied against us in certain situations.

Evidence (including Swartz's case) strongly suggests that this discretion leads to an unjust result.

It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral", for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral (whistleblowers, protestors, etc.). So, like I said before, the criminal justice system is composed of laws and the people who make the call as to whether to prosecute, which in this case includes a powerful company (JSTOR), an academic institution (MIT), cops, the FBI and finally Ortiz and her office.

A few more characters than you might immediately list when you think of "the law", right?

When you say "Someone felt wronged and brought it to the attention of those who could prosecute the crime", you make it sound like it's an automatic process from one to the other. As someone who has both suffered and carried out actions which are illegal according to the letter of the law, I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

Read my article: HSBC broke a whole bunch of laws (to the tune of a trillion dollars a year), and got a sweet plea deal and no individual prosecutions. Good luck getting similar treatment if you shoplift an iPod, particularly if you're anything other than white.

[Zimahl]

You can pick and choose any number of 'wrongful' or 'unjust' litigation. There's a ton. HSBC is irrelevant to Swartz.

It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral", for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral (whistleblowers, protestors, etc.).

Irrelevant. Social desire and morality has nothing to do with it. BTW, those are very subjective. I do feel that Swartz should've gone a different, more legal route if he wanted to cause change. I have no issue with him being prosecuted. So who is right, you or me?

JSTOR is not the law. MIT is not the law. They are involved in the criminal matter but do not determine whether something gets prosecuted. Is it arbitrary and sometimes political? Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being prosecuted. Very few gave a shit about the case until he killed himself. Where was all the outrage over the prosecution up until then?

When you say "Someone felt wronged and brought it to the attention of those who could prosecute the crime", you make it sound like it's an automatic process from one to the other.

Absolutely not. If JSTOR and MIT didn't think it was an issue it wouldn't have gone anywhere. If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law enforcement. Obviously JSTOR and/or MIT brought this illegal activity through the proper channels and law enforcement took over. Maybe the FBI/Justice Dept was using Swartz as an example but he still broke a law.

As someone who has both suffered and carried out actions which are illegal according to the letter of the law, I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

You can feel free to rape, murder, and pillage all you want. If there's no one to report the crime, no one willing to report the crime, or no authority to report to, then, sure, you won't be prosecuted. But don't be outraged if you get prosecuted when you break the law.

[supervacuo]

> Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being prosecuted.

WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation.

> If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law enforcement.

... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement. Many reported crimes are not acted upon at all; some of them get a huge overreaction (like Swartz's) and some get an under-reaction (like HSBC).

That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for everyone, and they clearly are not.

[Zimahl]

WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation.

Outrageous to whom? You?

I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime, however, that's the punishment. I wouldn't want that punishment so I do not steal copyrighted material. That's Atwood's point in it's entirety: Swartz knew there were strict penalties and wasn't willing to accept the consequences if caught.

... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement.

This depends on a lot of factors and you know that. But there isn't some Illuminati deciding whether every case is important enough to prosecute.

That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for everyone, and they clearly are not.

Prosecutors prosecute what they think they can win. Swartz was a win for obvious reasons, HSBC wasn't for reasons unbeknownst to me. Our system is what it is. If you can't accept losing, don't play ball.